Shadow Minister has just written that TZ has resorted to name calling because he has no cogent argument. So how does that inaccurate charge sit with the fact that Shadow Minister, right here on this thread, has repeatedly used the following personal abuse:

"Twit"

"I suggest you grow a pair"

"Your requirement for proof is infantile"

"Your mind is definitely not your sharpest tool"

"Your fuzzy brain might struggle"

"Shows a complete ignorance"

"Let reality shine into your emotionally clouded thought processes"

"Or do I really need to use small words and use pictures for someone devoid of inductive reason"

Does it therefore follow that Shadow Minister has no cogent argument, owing to his use of personal abuse? All this personal abuse was written By Shadow Minister.

It says more about him, than the people he was abusing.

And again, in his last post, he's at it again: "Blood is on your hands" he writes. That's what the several xenophobes here do when they have no cogent argument ..... they imply that those who don't agree with them are indirectly responsible for killing boat people. It's their sad attempt to take the high moral ground, at the expense of tragic deaths.

Smithy,

It's called obfuscation." 'The best form of political defence is attack' Insult the person get them off the thread that is so threatening (revealing).

It is in fact the consequences of having a fixed Dogma.

I would like a $ for very time I've been called party partisan particularly by the 'conservatives' rather than answer the question.

Last night on Q&A Hockey climbed into Richardson about telling lies in politics. Hockey stated he doesn't lie in politics. Yet when asked a direct question that required a yes or no (i.e. Do you want to become the leader of the party?) He first attacked, deliberately tried to shift the responsibility to the moderator, then obfuscated.(Personally they both provided proof of why I wouldn't trust either or the party [fixed Dogma adverasry] system)

If the practical purpose of a lie is to hide the truth and obfuscation is the same therefore the two are for practical purposes the same. One can then deduce that SM hasn't got a valid argument and is prepared to lie about it.

NB What is flawed, is his faith in fixed dogma and the equally flawed "opposition" and all major parties. Simply put politicians and their acolytes must LIE to support their Dogma if they hope for power...

The question to his ilk is WHY?

Shadow Minister

<< The new policy I posted clearly states that the detainees can be released before their asylum status is determined. >>

My apologies, I didn't realise that the statement of yours we're debating (made BTW many pages ago now) was specifically related to a link you'd posted. I've checked out the ASRC link (an excellent source BTW) and can at last see where you're coming from!

The section you're referring to is policy change that may have been in the pipeline, but which has been well and truly put on hold now, due to the steep influx of arrivals on Christmas Island. As it currently stands, asylum-seekers are certainly not coming to the mainland before their claims have been verified. Some have already been detained on Christmas Island for around twelve months and you'll be pleased to know their stay definitely looks set to be a lengthy one.

<< As they haven't been charged, there cannot legally be any restriction on their travel. What or who is going to stop them? >>

First of all, what the hell would they be charged with? They're asylum-seekers. They haven't committed a crime.

I don't know whether or not they'd be granted travel visas. I doubt it very much. Even if they were, their priorities would be learning the language, finding work and familiarizing themselves with a new country and culture. I doubt very much that any would have the money or the inclination to travel while they're waiting for their refugee determination to come through.

Rest assured, this is all very much academic at the moment. There's no way the Rudd government will move in this direction now, if ever. With the country's redneck nerve once again reinvigorated, Kevin has his eye fixed on votes, not asylum-seekers' rights.

I do consider it to be the best solution though, irrespective of any of the scaremongering scenarios that your vivid imagination might care to concoct. It would save the taxpayer millions of dollars and would ensure a much smoother and less problematic transition for both the asylum-seekers and the Australian community.

Bronwyn,
Sorry to butt in but in the article section I pointed out the illogical nature of the Christmas island Indian Ocean 'solution' and how at best it is a temporary solution.

Last night on Q&A it was noted that the primary reason the Pacific solution worked was that there was significant naval(blockade) presence in the intervening seas. Pacific solution was then simply the cherry on top. However current tactics negate the 'blockade' idea.

Given Indonesians reluctance to take asylum seekers regardless where they're picked up sends a message to international shipping to take them to Australia (Tamper #2) or ignore them.

I raised the point in the post that about how long will Indonesia will continue to be the 'dumping ground'.

Given the the significantly lesser conditions in Indonesia and following logic it stands that one way or another the 'flood' sic will continue unabated. How long will it be before CI and the islands solution are full or conditions are a problem? then there is the enormous cost.(very unpopular with the 'red neck nerve' (good description)

I jokingly how to be effective in discouraging refugees from coming here we needed to make Australia seem worse than other places. Closing tourist bureax (spelling?), internet etc.

But I did float, that given the numbers are smallish, change the visa law to allow volunteers to work on farms (jobs we won't do) as Guest workers. It would placate some, in that the refugees are earning their keep and not such a drain on tax dollars. Supporting govt assisted infrastructure would add value to farms etc. not 'wasted' on some island.

The people would be paid. And if their threat were to change they could return 'home' with money to start again. I wonder if that couldn't be politically sold. education would be at non working times. 'Hard work' would 'discourage' others who 'allegedly' want a free ride. the HR benefits are obvious.

Well what do you think?

Shadow Minister,
From his last few posts, TZ has shown to anyone that can read that he is an idiot and not capable of producing any rational argument. He has not put anything forward of sustance and his posts are purely rants. Best ignored in future. TZ has not been able to produce anything that refutes the poor character of the illegals I have outlined.

However, he did start this thread and for that I thank him for giving me again the opportunity to expose the illegal boat people for the opportunistic, dishonest liars that they are. From the moment they bribe an official in their home country for a passport to the lies they tell our officials here in Aus, it is a series of deceit all the way. They even sabotage their own boats and put others lives at risk simply to get their own way. If their stories of persecution were true, they would not leave their wives and kids to the risks and squallor at home and cowardly slink off on their own half way round the world and hide here in relative luxery on our social security.

If you get the impression that I do not think very highly of these gate crashers to our shores, you are quite right and I hope the government can stop the boats coming, which will leave more places available for the genuine refugees.

Turnbull today proved a point, he had no opinion on that boat in Indonesia.
I do have, that country asked us to rescue them.
Therefore should take them, back, yes they came from that country.
Rudd is In a corner, if he had bought them here he would have been seen as weak.
And many more would start the journey, yet I think he should have, that time has past.
If he brings them now?
We will never see the end of people smuggling he will not bring them here.
Bronwyn and others will not understand me, but I am not prepared to sacrifice my progressive government trying to empty the Sydney harbor with a jam jar.
The easier it is to come and stay the more will.
Yes it is tragic, yes I hurt to think of that, but even if we wished to we can not fix the worlds problems.
I will never ever get in my own refugee boat and leave Labor for the greens, I deep;y understand no party can please every one every time.
If we took a million right now, we could do it, we would need to find yet more room for the millions who would say me too.
Humanity would be better served by removing the governments these people flee.